Everything above this line is placed here by Tripod
as our price
for the free web page they have so graciously provided.
The advertising is from Tripod and not initiated nor endorsed by
the Plainfield Friends.

An Assessment of East Coast Quakerism

By

Ellen T. Charry

May, 1992

I am pleased to be able to speak with' you
today as part of a farewell to the Friends who have
succored and healed our children over the past ten
years and all of us as a family over the past seven
years. We, like many Friends, were refugees from a
religious tradition which we sadly concluded had
gone astray. We had to rescue our children from our
ancestral heritage because we concluded upon
reflection that what had always been home had
turned into a burning building. We sent the children
to Quaker camps on the first principle of medical
practice: do no harm. Well, summer camp grew into
weekly meeting for worship, and eventual
membership for two of us. Our children became
immersed in the youth programming of two yearly
meetings, and are still staffing at two of the summer
youth programs of the Baltimore Yearly Meeting.
Dana became deeply involved with every aspect of life
at Plainfield Monthly Meeting and worked on
committees of the New York Yearly Meeting. We both
taught in the Quaker Studies program of the NYYM,
etc. Our children were nurtured, challenged and
healed at BYM and Powell House. Dana found a
community where his gifts and talents were accepted
and admired. I found a place to think through some
hard questions that had been percolating for many
years.

To those of you who fled to the Friends to escape
organized religion, I must warn you that I speak as a
convinced Christian student of theology who is about
to go off to teach theology in a mainstream Christian
denomination.

To begin I want to define what I mean by theology
and why I study and teach theology. Theology is the
task of reflecting on religious beliefs and practices so
that members of religious communities know clearly
who they are and that religious communities know
what they are doing. Theologians are a religious
tradition's thinkers. Thinkers are needed, though not
often welcomed, because religious communities, like
all human institutions, frequently are so close to the
issues and trends of the moment that they lose sight
of both the past and the present. Who they are is
usually beclouded by what is happening at the
moment. In other words, as collective entities,
religious communities are institutionally
nearsighted.

The task of theology may be summed up in a
bumper sticker Dana brought home one day. It said:
"The main thing is to keep the main thing the main
thing." And that is easier said than done. From time
to time the intellectual or anti-intellectual currents
that regularly buffet societies expose the 'main thing'
in different lights, so that what started out as the
'main thing' may eventually come to be seen as an
auxiliary thing,' or even an 'embarrassing thing'. Not
only that but the very notion that the main thing is to
keep the main thing the main thing may be
challenged. In this case the main thing may be to find
a new thing to be the main thing, or more simply do
away with the idea of a main thing altogether. This
last move may be motivated by the natural frustration
that comes from realizing that human beings have
almost invariably corrupted the main thing in the
perennial cycle of reclaiming, purifying and
eventually reinstitutionalizing it. More often and
more dangerously, the desire for a new thing to be
the main thing or offense taken at the very idea of a
main thing results from sentimentality about how
we've always done things, contempt for the past,
sloppy thinking, the cultural nearsightedness I
mentioned before, and just plain ignorance. The less
comfortable a community is with careful study and
reflection the more vulnerable it becomes to
distortion, rigidification, and plain old confusion.

Theologians are people who study how their
predecessors went about thinking through a religious
tradition informed by its past, its texts, its conflicts
and failures, and its customary ways of articulating
its identity. Generally theological movements proceed
cyclically. Religious traditions are often born with
great explosive bursts of energy. These are followed
by periods of organizing and institutionalizing. They
often ossify and lose their way. And this in turn gives
rise to fresh insights and bursts of energy which
either repristinate or refocus the whole. Then the
cycle starts anew. The hope is always to have clear
thinking overpower fuzzy thinking, sentimentality,
fear and half-knowledge.

The next thing I want to define is what I mean by
religion. Religion is the identification of a
transcendent reality that functions as the organizing
principle of life in keeping with which beliefs,
actions, and culturally determined practices are
crafted. This definition of religion entails the
following points.

. By identification I mean to suggest that the
center of the religious impulse, the 'transcendent
reality' is not something that members or adherents
believe they themselves create. Identification
suggests that the transcendent reality named is
disclosed to and or recognized by adherents; it is not
created by them. This is what the three main Western
religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - call
revelation. The people who gave generative shape to
these traditions - Moses, Paul, and Muhammad - were
conveying to others something they had received, not
something they invented.

. By transcendent reality I mean a realm that
escapes those who try to articulate it. Transcendent
reality is, by definition beyond our ability to
domesticate and control. It is we who must take
account of it; we cannot shape it in our own image,
although we often talk as if we could; rather we must
not be afraid to bow and bend - as the Shaker hymn
'Simple Gifts' puts it - 'til in turning and turning we
come round right'. This is to say that religions,
although the word is a bit out of phase just now,
make truth claims. This is not to be confused with
recognizing that each tradition expresses its truth
claims in the form of what has misleadingly been
called 'myth'. There is no necessary conflict between
the words 'truth' and 'myth'. A religious myth is a
way of talking about reality that claims to be true
across time and space. Love, for example, is a true
myth. Metaphors, for example, are used by poets and
writers to convey truths beyond the specifics of a
certain spatio-temporal situation.

Many religious traditions, including Hinduism,
Islam, Taoism, Christianity, and arguably Judaism
hold the point of the religious life to be to properly
align oneself with transcendent reality as the
tradition articulates it. Most religious traditions
articulate some form of what might be called
salvation - the idea that it is both necessary and
possible to 'come round right'.

. The phrase 'functions as the organizing
principle' means to convey the idea that the
identification of transcendent reality is intended to
become the central principle around which a
coherent way of life is self-consciously fashioned. It
means that religions are intentional and reflective. It
suggests that as a tradition of reflection accumulates
over time, subsequent thinkers sift through the
sediment so as continually to ask whether the
organizing principle is prominent or has become
obscured beneath cultural accretions or ways of
talking about the transcendent reality it names .

. The final issue of beliefs, actions, and culturally
determined practices has to do with the issue of
consistency. To what extent is the practice of the way
of life consonant with the identification of
transcendent reality at its center? This implies that
a continuous process of reform is necessary in order
to remain faithful to the vision of transcendent reality
at the center of every religious tradition. This often
takes a very long time as one must be sure that one
is actually identifying inconsistencies in the tradition
rather than imposing on the tradition one' s personal
preferences, even widely shared ones. John
Woolman, for example, assisted Christianity to
recognize that slavery was incompatible with the
gospel, even though this escaped St. Paul himself .

Now, let me repeat my definition of religion.
Religion is the identification of a transcendent reality
that functions as the organizing principle of life in
keeping with which beliefs, actions, and culturally
determined practices are crafted. There are two
underlying implications of this definition which I
want to be sure are clear. One is that although they
seek to discern the truth and how it is related to us
and how we are to be related to it, they require
constant surveillance to keep them from corruption.
The other is that the point of discerning or
articulating the truth they try to convey is to shape
us. They assume that we need what they offer us.
That is, they assume that we are unable to craft
ourselves in anything but our own image and that is
simply an exercise in wheel spinning. Another way of
putting this is to say bluntly that properly
responsible religious beliefs teach humility and
assume the need for help. While they may offer
comfort they also challenge by holding out standards
and models of human personhood which are
genuinely helpful. That is, they are both therapeutic
and soothing, and morally demanding.

Religious traditions claim to be good for us. But all
parents and many adults know that what one needs
is often not what one wants, and that what one wants
may be more harmful than helpful. Given all this the
question I want to pose to you today is whether
contemporary east coast Quakerism is a religion by
the criteria I have just outlined. But prior to that I
want to add just a few words about the fate of religion
in the past two centuries. Beginning with the 18th
century what was called the Enlightenment, coupled
with the inception of modern science found religion
to be the root of all evil. (In the 19th century Karl
Marx expanded that conclusion to include money.)
And of course it is correct that religious beliefs are
deeply implicated in violent conflict, or at least have
been the mask for the exercise of political and
military power.

Secularism developed as a safe alternative to the
corrupting power of religion. But secularism has bred
its own problems. Nationalism has not won accolades
for itself in our century. And communism, sought as
alternative both to nationalism and capitalism, has
also proven disappointing. On the other hand,
American secularism turns out to be naturalism and
hedonism run wild. The Enlightenment notion of
individual freedom has turned into an extreme form
of individual autonomy and cultural relativism which
denies the need for both individual and corporate
responsibility.

Every problem it seems is someone else's
responsibility. And the family that once was the
vehicle of human formation is in disarray. Self-formation is the only acceptable form of guidance.
Narrowly conceived forms of self-interest now guide
quasi-religious groups based on gender and race. The
guiding and shaping functions of religion have simply
been abandoned. The mall, the television and the
streets now raise our children who are locked away
from the civilizing influences of family and religion in
a variety of teen subcultures immune to adult
intrusion. Parents are overwhelmed by the power of
alcohol, vandalism, drugs, violence against property
and persons; sex is entertainment. Our schools are
in disarray, now burdened with being parents and
police as well as educators. Our inner cities are
moral and physical death traps that billions of dollars
in social, educational and health programs cannot
dent.

Well, before I run off at the mouth, I will simply say
that I think it no exaggeration to say that our country
is in a state of moral crisis. In this atmosphere, more
and more people are beginning to reconsider whether
the hope that religion would wither away was not
shortsighted.

Now, after that circuitous route, I come to the
specific examination of the question, is Quakerism a
religion? There is no doubt that the earliest Quakers
believed that they were part of the great movement of
Reform that swept Western Christendom beginning in
the 16th century. Their intention was to purify the
faith by highlighting the power of divine guidance
directly in the lives of the community and
individuals. The abandonment of liturgy, rites, and
trained leadership was undertaken by people who had
internalized the Christian tradition and knew its
scriptures so thoroughly that they were confident
that they could be knit together in communion by the
divine guidance of the Holy Spirit and the presence of
Jesus Christ without the institutional forms relied
upon by other communities.

In secular societies this ideal of religious
community is unworkable. Today, ironically,
Quakerism in this part of the country resembles early
Quakerism in outward forms only: silent worship,
and a distinctive vocabulary. Without time to trace
how it happened, Quakerism has been transformed
from a community trying to reclaim the primitive
Christianity of the Acts of the Apostles into a group
of post-Christians with varying interests. The
possibility of holding together radical Christianity,
modern paganism, New Ageism, witchcraft,
ecofeminism, ideological homophilia (the opposite of
homophobia), and a secular social activism in a
coherent community is, I think, slim. Quakerism as
I have experienced it in NYYM is not a community
seeking the guidance of God but a group of
individuals seeking their individual therapeutic needs
in one another's company. Please do not conclude
that Quakerism is the only community seeking to
create a post-Christian tradition. The assault on
Christianity at the present time is widespread and
often deeply entrenched. Christian theological
schools have post-Christian ideologues on their
faculties and many have numerous post-Christians
among their student bodies. The phenomenon
occurring among the Friends is in no way distinctive.

In case there is any doubt about the two strands of
thought I am trying to weave together, let me be
clear. Christianity has provided the intellectual and
moral backbone of Western civilization. In the US the
separation of church and state has allowed for the
development of secular political institutions while
permitting religion to set standards of moral
personhood and public responsibility. My own
observation is that precisely at a moment when our
country is in need of moral and spiritual guidance
and uplift a movement hostile to Christianity has
arisen to replace it with a hastily constructed
coalition of interest groups which are not necessarily
in agreement with one another.

Yet with so much territory carved out for
Christians it is understandable that post-Christians
want a room of their own. What irks Christian
Quakers is that post-Christians have walked into the
Quaker's living room and starting redecorating and
rearranging the furniture without acknowledging or
perhaps even realizing that someone else is living
there! It rude not to say so much as is excuse me. It
hurts to be evicted from one's own house.

What I have concluded from observing PMM and
NYYM is that it is unhelpful for Christian and post-Christian/Jewish Quakers to continue to duke it out.
It is not possible for Christians and post-Christians
to try to live together amicably in one community. So
much energy must be given over to the struggle for
control of each faction by the other, that none
remains for carrying out the mission and ministry of
either group. If post-Christians want to try their hand
at constructing an alternative to Christianity they
need to do so without interference from Christians.
And unless the post-Christians are ready to quietly
relinquish their squatter's rights and truly start
afresh on territory they mark out for themselves,
which I do not think likely, Christians had best be
the one's to regroup, even though they hold title to
the land. Christian Quakers cannot profess their faith
freely under the suspicious eyes of post-Christians,
and they should not have to. They too need a space of
their own.

As painful as it is, I am suggesting that a divorce is
preferable to remaining in this dysfunctional
marriage. But even as I say this I think the issue is
moot. As far as I can tell the divorce has already
occurred. Most of the Christians I know in the NYYM
have already left. The coast is clear for post-Christian
Quakers to strip the walls to the bare studs and build
afresh., trying their hand at institutionalizing their
beliefs, trying to minister to one another and to the
world, and to hand on their beliefs to their children.

As a student of theological history I would offer a
few suggestions to both sides. First to the post-Christians. As you undertake to build a new
community you must decide whether or not what you
are trying to build is a religion that seeks to succor
and mold persons according to a calling that comes
from beyond themselves or some other sort of
community organized for political or social purposes
or some other end. Trouble is often in store when
people are confused about the purposes of a group.

As you go about designing a community on its
own terms I would suggest keeping the following in
mind:

1. Anti-intellectualism is a dangerous trap.

2. Children are not adults.

3. History is a friend not an enemy; your problem or
issue has probably cropped up before somewhere.

4. Even if you didn't get along with your parents,
minister, or youth group leader as a child, Ieadership
is not necessarily oppressive .

5. Good ideas are easily corrupted and almost always
become so.

6. Most of us are not the creative thinkers we think
we are.

7. Most of us do not like to be comforted and
challenged at the same time; it confuses us; we prefer
being comforted to being challenged.

To the defeated Christians I want to offer some
words of comfort. You are not alone. I believe your
pain is part of a great watershed movement taking
place within the Christian world. Christians are again
a minority, sometimes a persecuted minority, just as
they were before the Emperor Constantine legalized
the faith.

Many battles like this have been fought in Christian
history, especially in its first five centuries as it was
finding its voice. Sometimes it took several centuries
before the dust settled to discern just what has been
won and what lost. Sometimes it took several
centuries to discern what mistakes were made so
that they could be avoided in the future. Maybe the
earliest Quakers, even George Fox, or pivotal thinkers
along the way like Rufus Jones made well-meaning
strategic errors that led to the present state of affairs.

I suggest you keep in mind that Quakerism was
only intended to be a corrective to 17th century
Christianity. The earliest Quakers had a long and
venerable tradition upon which they drew. They never
understood themselves apart from the larger
Christian community. Even should Christian Quakers
decide that the Quaker experiment is no longer
viable, they should not despair. All Christians know
that religious institutions are earthen vessels. When
they become ends in themselves, rather than helpful
means to the knowledge and love of God, it is time for
an overhaul. Whether, like Louis Bensen you try to
begin again or return to other parts of the Christian
family, your effort was not in vain.

Yes, it would be nice if the post-Christians
apologized for displacing Christians, and yes it would
be nice if the Christians accepted the post-Christians
without making them feel guilty or judging them
harshly. This cannot be. post-Christians do not
understand why Christians cannot live peaceably
with them or with one another. And Christians do not
understand why post-Christians cannot accept the
need for a theologically coherent and unified
community. I hope you will all try to reach beyond
your pain to see that the other side is acting out of
what it takes to be its own integrity.

Opinions expressed are not necessarily the opinion of the publisher of this web page.Please forward comments & suggestions to
Alan Taplow